Retry post CSV import

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that only failed rows are re-run rather than the whole job, but says nothing about idempotency, whether duplicate rows can be created, whether the call is async, or what happens when no failed rows exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameter and absent return semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back (a new job id, a count of retried rows, or a status), and with 0% parameter coverage it should identify the jobId source. Neither is present, so a caller cannot predict the result or supply the input confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter jobId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing — it never mentions the parameter, its expected source (e.g., from list_post_csv_imports or get_post_csv_import), or its format. The agent must guess which job identifier to pass.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

A specific verb ('re-run') plus resource ('an import job's failed rows'), with the added scope detail that only failed rows are reprocessed, which separates it from create_post_csv_import. It does not explicitly name the sibling it complements (get_post_csv_import / get_post_csv_import_rows), so an agent must infer the relationship.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'failed rows' implies the pre-condition that a prior import partially failed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the sibling tools that surface failed rows. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.